Indiana GOP lines up behind Lugar's primary challenger (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 30, 2024, 03:39:21 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Indiana GOP lines up behind Lugar's primary challenger (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Indiana GOP lines up behind Lugar's primary challenger  (Read 9741 times)
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« on: February 25, 2011, 01:21:54 PM »

Joe Donnelly is talking about taking on Mourdock and running for Senate. Getting a rougher seat in redistricting is likely a good incentive, especially if Mourdock turns out to be the Ken Buck of Indiana in a more balanced year than 2010 was.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #1 on: March 03, 2011, 09:38:42 AM »

On Foreign Policy, Lugar is indeed an idiot leftist.

No one considers Lugar an "idiot" on foreign policy.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #2 on: March 03, 2011, 02:31:28 PM »

I realize that one of the problems with those on the left is that they find it inconceivable that anyone would dare disagree with the,

Perhaps you will next assert that "no one opposes socialism" ?

Plenty of people oppose socialism.

But even people who disagree with Lugar's views, don't consider him stupid or ill-informed. Similarly, people don't generally call Sarah Palin hideous or George W. Bush short. They won't call him stupid unless they're trying to throw everything and the kitchen sink at him because they are so consumed with rage that they don't care if their charge is correct. Or all they know about him is that he disagrees with the Tea Party on some treaty, so therefore he must be "stupid."
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2011, 11:08:25 AM »

How does the START treaty represent "appeasement"? Please specify what is appeasement relative to what would have happened if the treaty were allowed to expire--not by analogy to different treaties.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2011, 11:21:16 AM »

How does the START treaty represent "appeasement"? Please specify what is appeasement relative to what would have happened if the treaty were allowed to expire--not by analogy to different treaties.

You REALLY need to look at the treaty!

CARL, I am giving you the opportunity to tell me what's on your mind and why it worries you. Seize the moment! Point out the worst parts and tell me how they lead to a worse situation than allowing the treaty to lapse. Talk to me as if I'm as stupid and addle-brained as Dick Lugar.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderator
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,972


« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2011, 02:24:05 PM »

Thanks for the link. I don't see anything about the treaty in there--only the concessions that Kyl and Corker wanted in exchange for supporting it, which Obama met.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.021 seconds with 12 queries.